>Jon writes:
>> Two other possibilities: (1) It's merely an independently produced
>> cryptosystem disguised as a "leak" to save its creator the trouble of
>> asking experts to analyze it for him/her.
>It strikes me as rather foolish to mail off anonymous copies to several
>individual recipients (Matt, Perry, Tim, ...) in addition to the list, if
>S1 is a real leak. Why aid the traffic analysts by firing off multiple
>messages through the remailers ?
A third possibility comes to mind, that person or persons associated with
the list are using the post to focus on cryptographic efforts in lieu of
political or apocalyptic diatribes.